#Nick Rasmussen former director of the National Counterterrorism Center | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

sarcasticcynic · 6 years ago

Text

MASTERPOST: Why Trump's Vanity Wall Is Stupid and Everything Trump Says About It Is a Lie

Image from Medium

Some actual facts to keep in mind while listening to the anticipated lies Trump will be spewing on national television this evening.

A Wall Won’t Stop Illegal Immigration

Because more than half the immigrants currently in the United States illegally came here legally:

“In 2006, the Pew Research Center calculated that more than a third of all unauthorized immigrants entered lawfully and then simply overstayed their visas. ... By 2012, visa overstays accounted for 58 percent of all new unauthorized immigrants.”

“Overstays accounted for about two-thirds (66 percent) of those who arrived (i.e., joined the undocumented population) in 2014. Overstays have exceeded EWIs [Entries Without Inspection, i.e. immigrants who crossed the border without proper immigration documents] every year since 2007, and 600,000 more overstays than EWIs have arrived since 2007.”

“Two-thirds of the foreigners living here illegally didn’t sneak across the border; they came on temporary visas.”

A Wall Won’t Stop Illegal Drugs

Because most illegal drugs arrive via ship or plane, not by land:

“According to the DEA, almost all drugs come in through legal points of entry.”

“As for drugs, the Coast Guard says 95 percent of them arrive in container ships or other boats.”

According to a report from the DEA, TCOs [Transnational Criminal Organizations] “generally route larger drug shipments destined for the Northeast through the Bahamas and/or South Florida by using a variety of maritime conveyance methods, to include speedboats, fishing vessels, sailboats, yachts, and containerized sea cargo. In some cases, Dominican Republic-based traffickers will also transport cocaine into Haiti for subsequent shipment to the United States via the Bahamas and/or South Florida corridor using maritime and air transport. ... According to DEA reporting, the majority of the heroin available in New Jersey originates in Colombia and is primarily smuggled into the United States by Colombian and Dominican groups via human couriers on commercial flights to the Newark International Airport.”

This holds true even for drugs coming specifically from Mexico:

Again, according to the DEA: “The most common method employed by Mexican TCOs involves transporting drugs in vehicles through U.S. ports of entry (POEs). Illicit drugs are smuggled into the United States in concealed compartments within passenger vehicles or commingled with legitimate goods on tractor trailers.”

“A barrier in the form of a wall is increasingly irrelevant to the drug trade as it is now practiced because most of the drugs smuggled into the U.S. from Mexico no longer arrive on the backs of those who cross illegally. Instead, according to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, most of the smuggled marijuana as well as cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamines comes through the 52 legal ports of entry on the border.”

“Stephen D. Morris, a Middle Tennessee State University political science professor whose research has largely focused on Mexico, gave us the same two reasons for why he believes ‘the wall will not do very much to stop drugs.’ ‘First, as you say, most drug shipments come disguised as commerce and are crossing the border by truck or in cargo containers. Human mules, to my knowledge, bring in a small fraction,’ he said. ‘Second, smugglers adapt. Whether it is tunnels, submarines, mules, drones, etc., they are good at figuring out new ways to get drugs to those in the US who will buy them.’”

Trump’s then-Chief of Staff John Kelly, testifying before Congress: “Certainly the metrics are people that don’t cross into the United States illegally. Another metric would be the amount of -- It mostly comes through the ports of entry.”

A Wall Won’t Stop Terrorists

Because most foreign terrorists arrive by plane, not over the Mexican border:

According to Trump’s own State Department: “At year’s end there was no credible evidence indicating that international terrorist groups have established bases in Mexico, worked with Mexican drug cartels, or sent operatives via Mexico into the United States.”

“According to Justice Department public records and two former counterterrorism officials, no immigrant has been arrested at the southwest border on terrorism charges in recent years.”

“In fiscal year 2017, federal officials stopped 3,755 people on the terrorist watch list from traveling to or entering the United States, but that includes people traveling through airports, seaports and land ports. The vast majority of those attempt to enter by air.”

“U.S. Customs and Border Protection encountered only six immigrants at ports of entry on the U.S-Mexico border in the first half of fiscal year 2018 whose names were on a federal government list of known or suspected terrorists, according to CBP data provided to Congress in May 2018.

“Nick Rasmussen, the former director of the National Counterterrorism Center from December 2014 through December 2017 said, ‘During my tenure, the threat of terrorists trying to infiltrate the United States across our southern border was much more of a theoretical vulnerability than an actual one. It simply isn’t the case that terrorist groups like ISIS and al Qaeda see the southern border as the optimal the way to get would-be terrorists into the country.’”

“Federal law enforcement has warned America’s airports and airlines that they remain top targets for terrorists because of their symbolic value, ‘inherent accessibility, and the presence of large crowds in unsecure areas.’”

Even Fox News contradicts the Trump administration on this: “Wait, wait, wait, wait wait - I know the statistic. I didn’t know if you were going to use it, but I studied up on this. You know where those 4,000 people were captured? Airports. The State Department says there hasn’t been any terrorists found coming across the southern border.”

Heck, more foreigners--as well as more people, period--on the terrorist watch list enter the United States through Canada than through Mexico:

“Overall, 41 people on the Terrorist Screening Database were encountered at the southern border from Oct. 1, 2017 through March 31, 2018, but 35 of them were U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. Six were classified as non-U.S. persons. On the northern border, CBP stopped 91 people from the database, including 41 who were not American citizens or residents.”

A Wall Is Unnecessary

Because current enforcement measures are already working:

Illegal entries are down to “roughly one-tenth the 2005 level.”

According to the Department of Homeland Security: “The successful illegal entry of migrants has significantly declined over the last ten years, the deterrence rate of illegal migration at the border has risen substantially, and the probability of apprehension has also risen.”

“Ramped-up border enforcement is working, helping to reduce successful crossings to one-tenth of what they were a decade earlier across the southern U.S. border with Mexico. ... Far fewer migrants from Mexico are successfully entering the country illegally than a decade ago because stepped-up border enforcement means fewer are trying, more are getting caught and more are giving up. ... Border Patrol apprehensions ... have dropped to the lowest levels since the early 1970s. The size of the nation’s undocumented population has leveled off at about 11.1 million after years of rapid growth, according to the Pew Research Center.”

And because, while fewer Mexicans are coming to the United States, more Americans are relocating to Mexico:

“The estimated number of Mexicans in the United States illegally rose steadily for many years, from 2.9 million in 1995 to a peak of 6.9 million in 2007. But the number began dropping in 2008 and has fallen more since, reaching 5.8 million in 2014, the latest year for which Pew analyzed data. If the number is falling, that means more illegal Mexican immigrants are leaving the United States than entering it. The numbers include both immigrants who entered the U.S. illegally and those who overstayed their visas. ... In 2014, the Border Patrol apprehended more non-Mexicans than Mexicans for the first time in at least 60 years.”

“Many Americans worry about illegal immigration from Mexico. The country is actually gaining immigrants itself. The legal foreign-born population doubled from 2000 to 2010. It’s now one million total. Of these, 750,000 are Americans. As a result, more Americans have immigrated to Mexico over the past few years than vice-versa.”

Walls Don’t Help Enforcement

According to former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff and “other experts”: “A wall does not add enforcement value except in heavy crossing areas near towns, highways, or other ‘vanishing points.’”

“Fencing has value in border crossing areas near ‘vanishing’ points (towns or highways), but in other places ‘makes no sense at all’ and ‘doesn’t add any value.’ Moreover, constructing a 2,000 mile barricade would pose immense engineering and environmental challenges and the result would be far from ‘impenetrable.’”

Existing barriers have already proven ineffective: “Using the broad powers granted to the Attorney General (AG) to control and guard the U.S. border, the USBP began erecting a barrier known as the ‘primary fence’ directly on the border in 1990 to deter illegal entries and drug smuggling in its San Diego sector. The San Diego fence formed part of the USBP’s ‘Prevention Through Deterrence’ strategy, which called for reducing unauthorized migration by placing agents and resources directly on the border along population centers in order to deter would-be migrants from entering the country. The San Diego primary fence was completed in 1993 ... The primary fence, by itself, did not have a discernible impact on the influx of unauthorized aliens coming across the border in San Diego.”

Walls Don’t Deter Immigrants

“One statistic that correlates closely with the construction of more walls [is] an increase in the number of deaths. As easier routes are closed, migrants choose ever more dangerous paths to reach their destination. ... Despite these clear material impacts on the lives of migrants, millions of people globally continue to cross borders without authorization—meaning walls are relatively ineffective.”

No One Wants a Wall

A majority of the country doesn’t want a wall:

“A majority -- 59 percent of Americans -- oppose building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.”

61% of registered voters “think building a wall between the US and Mexico ... should not be an immediate priority.”

Local politicians--including Republicans--don’t want a wall:

Rep. Will Hurd, a Republican from Texas whose district includes 800 miles of the Mexican border, says: “You can’t build a wall from sea to shining sea. It just doesn’t work. It’s the most expensive way to do border security, and it’s the least effective.”

Even the U.S. Border Patrol doesn’t want a wall:

“Border Patrol agents on the front lines say they need more technology and additional personnel to curb the illegal traffic ... less than one half of 1 percent of the agents’ suggestions to secure the Southwest border mentioned the need for a wall. ... [Trump’s] funding requests for a wall far exceeded proposed spending on border technology and personnel, which border agents identified as critically needed.”

A Wall Would Devastate the Environment

A wall would destroy the natural habitats of dozens of species:

“The Center for Biological Diversity reports that 93 wildlife species would be adversely affected. ‘This may well lead to the extinction of the jaguar, ocelot, cactus ferruginous pygmy owl and other species in the United States.’”

“Wall construction proceeds without the necessary depth of environmental impact analysis, development of less-damaging alternative strategies, postconstruction environmental monitoring, mitigation, public input, and pursuit of legal remedies. ... The border wall harms wildlife populations by eliminating, degrading, and fragmenting habitats ... the border bisects the geographic ranges of 1506 native terrestrial and freshwater animal (n = 1077) and plant (n = 429) species, including 62 species listed as Critically Endangered, Endangered, or Vulnerable by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List ... construction of the wall and associated infrastructure, such as roads, lights, and operating bases, eliminates or degrades natural vegetation, kills animals directly or through habitat loss, fragments habitats (thereby subdividing populations into smaller, more vulnerable units), reduces habitat connectivity, erodes soils, changes fire regimes, and alters hydrological processes (e.g., by causing floods). ... Physical barriers prevent or discourage animals from accessing food, water, mates, and other critical resources by disrupting annual or seasonal migration and dispersal routes. ... If cut off by a border wall, 17% of the 346 species we analyzed, including jaguar (Panthera onca) and ocelot (Leopardus pardalis), would have residual US populations covering 20,000 square kilometers or less ... This would elevate their risk of extirpation within the United States according to IUCN Red List criteria.”

“Scientists agree with the irrefutable evidence that the border wall is a rampant ecological disaster. This is notable because consensus is rare among scientists. When scientific consensus does exist—as with climate change—it’s a wake-up call that business as usual is likely to result in catastrophe. ... the border wall also cuts through the habitats of over 1,500 wildlife species. ... [A] wall is an unclimbable barricade for 346 nonflying animal species, not to mention flighted species like the endangered Quino checkerspot butterfly and the threatened and endangered ferruginous pygmy-owl that cannot fly high enough to surmount the wall. Without passage, animals cannot disperse to new populations to spread their genes, potentially leading to genetic inbreeding akin to the plight of the African cheetah. During natural seasonal flooding, the wall traps flood waters and kills wildlife and vegetation. During natural disasters like heat waves, when water or food on one side of the wall is not available, those species will be left to perish, unable to access resources on the other side. ... Building the border wall sacrifices the ancient biodiversity of North America for the momentary political gain of one president.”

One example: Trump is planning to build his wall through the National Butterfly Center, and has already begun “the surveying and staking of a ‘clear zone’ that will bulldoze 200,000 square feet of habitat for protected species like the Texas Tortoise and Texas Indigo, not to mention about 400 species of birds.” On privately owned property, yet.

A Wall Is Absurdly Expensive

Trump’s wall will cost--at a minimum--more than 2½ times the $8 billion Trump originally claimed:

His own Department of Homeland Security estimates the cost at $21.6 billion, not including maintenance.

“The best estimate from Massachusetts Institute of Technology engineers” is $31.2 billion.

Some estimates have been as high as $70 billion!

And based on the last time we built a barrier on the border, the wall is likely to cost at least five times the estimate:

“Congress set aside $1.2 billion for the 700-mile border fence in 2006. ... The Congressional Research Service found that by 2015, Congress had already spent $7 billion on the project.”

Oh, and Mexico is not paying for it.

Why Trump Insists on Building His Vanity Wall Anyway

He’d like to be permanently enshrined on this list:

Washington Monument

Lincoln Memorial

Mount Rushmore

Grant’s Tomb

Jefferson Memorial

Hoover Dam

Kennedy Center

Roosevelt Island

Trump Wall

40 notes · View notes

ladystylestores · 5 years ago

Text

Iran and Hezbollah’s Pre-Operational Modus Operandi in the West

Cipher Brief Expert Mitch Silber and Ioan Pop have pulled from court documents and open source reporting to compile a modus operandi of Iran and Hezbollah and their efforts to attack the west.

Mitchell D. Silber, Former Director of Intelligence, NYPD

In January 2020, Mitchell D. Silber was named the executive director of the Community Security Initiative, a new position created as part of UJA and JCRC-NY’s $4 million plan to help secure local Jewish institutions in the New York region. He previously served as Director of Intelligence Analysis at the New York City Police Department where he was the principal advisor to the Deputy Commissioner of Intelligence on counterterrorism policy and analysis. He has represented the NYPD at the White House, National Security Council, CIA, FBI, and National Counter Terrorism Center and testified before the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives.

Ioan Pop, Former Senior Intelligence Analyst, NYPD

Ioan Pop is an associate managing director in K2 Intelligence’s Financial Crimes Risk and Compliance practice in New York. Prior to joining K2 Intelligence, Ioan worked for 10 years as a senior intelligence analyst in the New York Police Department (NYPD) Intelligence Bureau, where he led various teams of intelligence analysts to support and direct NYPD counterterrorism investigations.

Tensions between the United States and Iran/Hezbollah have been on the rise since 2018 when the U.S. administration withdrew from the 2015 nuclear deal. These tensions spiked in January 2020 when U.S. strikes killed Qassem Soleimani the leader of Iran’s IRGC-Quds Force.

There is mounting evidence that in recent years, Iran and Hezbollah have sought to create a sleeper network in the U.S. and Western Europe, which could be activated to launch attacks as part of a retaliatory attack. This paper assesses Iran and Hezbollah pre-operational modus operandi in the West derived from court documents and open source reporting of recent arrest of Hezbollah and Iranian agents in the US and abroad. It sheds lights on the recruitment, training, and placement of these agents and the intricacies of their past operations. While it is impossible to predict when, where or how Iran/Hezbollah might retaliate as retribution for Soleimani’s killing, this article argues that there is growing number of indicators and warning signs for a possible attack in the U.S. or against U.S. interests abroad.

Tensions between the United States and Iran have been increasing since 2018 when the U.S. administration withdrew from the 2015 nuclear deal and re-imposed comprehensive sanctions on Iran. In response, Iran and its proxies have committed a series of calibrated asymmetric regional escalations designed to pressure the United States and its regional allies.

The January 3, 2020 U.S. strike that killed the IRGC-Quds Force leader, Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, has the potential to be a dramatic step up the escalation ladder by the United States, which catalyzes formidable Iranian retaliation against American interests. From the authors’ experience, as well as based on an assessment of the decade-long surge in Iran and Lebanese Hezbollah preoperational activities in both Western Europe and the United States, there is a high likelihood of a possible future attack on U.S. interests abroad and the possibility of an attack in the homeland. This article presents seven principles that underpin Iran and Hezbollah preoperational planning for a potential terrorist attack, ranging from surveillance, logistical planning, and front operations to disguise operatives to infiltration, recruitment, and target selection.

“They [U.S.] hit him [Soleimani] in a cowardly way, but with God’s grace and through endeavors of freedom-seekers around the world who want vengeance over his blood, we will hit his enemy in a manly fashion,” stated Esmail Qaani, the new leader of the IRGC-Quds Force following the death of his predecessor on January 3, 2020 in a U.S. drone strike at Baghdad international airport. Similarly, Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called for “forceful revenge” to avenge Soleimani’s death and; Hassan Nasrallah, the Secretary General of Hezbollah called on Hezbollah operatives globally to carry out “the appropriate punishment,” stating that this “will be the responsibility and task of all resistance fighters worldwide.”

During the authors’ time at the NYPD Intelligence Division (2005-2015), the threat from Iran and Hezbollah was always near and sometimes at the very top of the threat matrix for New York City based on Iran and Hezbollah’s global reach, sophistication and lethality as well as particular features that made the city a uniquely attractive target. Although the threat fluctuated depending on geopolitical tensions, given the killing of Qassem Soleimani, the commander of Iran’s IRGC – Quds Force, amid a background of rising tensions between Iran and the United States, the authors assess that the West is at an elevated risk for Iranian and, or Hezbollah retaliation. Therefore, it is important to analyze and assess Iran and Hezbollah’s preoperational modus operandi for committing terrorist attacks in the West.

Based on recent history, the authors assess that it is likely that Soleimani’s killing will trigger an Iranian/Hezbollah retaliatory response (or responses) similar to the reaction to the assassinations of Hezbollah leaders Abbas Musawi (1992) and Imad Mugniyah (2008). Like those, the vengeance will likely be calibrated, sufficient to send a message, but not so extreme as to threaten the survival of the Iranian regime. While widespread COVID-19 transmissions rates in Iran might delay Iranian plans for retaliation, based on past Iranian history, the regime is a patient actor and the IRGC is unlikely to be satisfied with anything less than a meaningful retaliatory response, delayed though it may be.

If the past is prolog, analysts might look at the 1992 Israeli Embassy bombing in Buenos Aires, which according to Argentine officials, was committed by Iran/Hezbollah partially in response to the Israeli assassination of Secretary General of Hezbollah, Abbas Musawi. Events that occurred in the wake of the February 2008 assassination of Hezbollah operations chief, Imad Mugniyah, by Israel and the United States may also be instructive. Following his death in Damascus, Syria, Hezbollah plotted several attacks to avenge his death in Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Cyprus, India, Kuwait and Turkey. However, other than the 2012 suicide bombing attack on a bus carrying Israeli tourists in Burgas, Bulgaria, which killed six Israeli tourists and injured forty-two, all of the Hezbollah plots were thwarted.

Iran is Hezbollah’s closest ally and patron, providing money and weapons to the terrorist group often described as an “Iranian aircraft carrier parked north of Israel.” In addition to their ideological, political and military ties, Iran reportedly funds Hezbollah with an estimated $200-700 million yearly.

Hezbollah and Iran’s intelligence apparatus have a history of joint terrorist attacks globally, most notably, the attacks in 1992 and 1994 in Buenos Aires targeting the local Israeli Embassy and AMIA, a Jewish cultural center respectively. Moreover, their joint mission over the past decade to keep Assad in power in Syria has led to a significant augmentation of their cooperation. This makes it likely that any future external operations would entail joint operational planning and execution.

There is evidence Iran and Hezbollah have sought in recent years to create a sleeper network in the United States and Western Europe, which could be activated to launch attacks.

The failed 2011 Iran-directed plot to target the Saudi Ambassador in Washington illustrated an attack within the United States was not unthinkable. Hezbollah operative, Ali Mohamed Kourani, told the FBI during his 2016-2017 interviews that “in the event that the United States and Iran went to war, the U.S. sleeper cell would expect to be called upon to act.”

U.S. officials have made clear that Iran and Hezbollah continue to be a potential threat to the United States Homeland. In 2012, the then Director of National Intelligence (DNI), James Clapper stated that Iranian officials “are now more willing to conduct an attack in the United States in response to real or perceived U.S. actions that threaten the regime.” The director of the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), Nick Rasmussen, noted in October 2017, “It’s our assessment that Hezbollah is determined to give itself a potential homeland option as a critical component of its terrorism playbook.”

Although decision-makers in Tehran will likely still think very carefully before striking the U.S. homeland to avenge the death of Soleimani, it is important for the analyst/policymaker community to understand Iran and Hezbollah’s efforts to create an infrastructure for potential attacks in the West. In light of this and coupled with the recent history of Iran and Hezbollah terrorist activity outside the U.S., which this article will also outline, following the death of Soleimani, Iran may be less hesitant to authorize a retaliatory strike.

Based on the authors’ analysis of Iran and Hezbollah’s past operations, foiled plots, the recent U.S. arrests of Hezbollah operatives and their personal experience leading Iran and Hezbollah intelligence investigations for NYPD, seven principles underpin the preoperational modus operandi of Iran and Hezbollah:

Intelligence gathering and surveillance activities;

Plausible diplomatic, business, education and other covers to conceal operational activities;

Infiltration of Iranian dissident groups;

Logistical planning for possible future attacks;

Preparing “human target packages” to enable assassinating dissidents and adversaries;

Counter-intelligence tradecraft, and operational security

Recruiting operatives with dual nationalities and Western passports from the Shia diaspora. Each of these are outlined in turn below.

Modus Operandi 1: Intelligence Gathering and Surveillance Activities

One of the distinguishing characteristics of Iran and Hezbollah’s modus operandi for operational planning in the West has been the sustained commitment to undertaking precise intelligence gathering and surveillance activities on targets that could support long term attack planning.

In some cases, Iranians have conducted intelligence gathering activities and in other cases it has been Lebanese expatriates acting on behalf of Hezbollah, who have burrowed into diaspora communities overseas to disguise their efforts.

New York City has witnessed intelligence gathering activities by both Iranians and Hezbollah operatives that demonstrate methodology and possible targets. In the case of Iran, between 2002 and 2010, the NYPD and federal authorities detected at least six events involving Iranian diplomatic personnel that these authors (who were then serving in the police department) struggled to categorize as anything other than hostile reconnaissance of New York City.

One of the most brazen incidents occurred at 2 a.m. on November 16, 2003 when uniformed NYPD officers riding a southbound 7 train observed two males filming the subway train tracks. The men, who initially claimed diplomatic immunity turned out to be guards at the Iranian Mission to the UN who had recently arrived in New York. “Despite two warnings from the State Department about this unacceptable behavior, in May 2004, two more Iranian Mission security guards were observed videotaping infrastructure, public transportation and New York City landmarks. One month later, the guards from the November 2003 subway incident were expelled by the United States for “engaging in activities that were not consistent with their duties” – in other words, spying.”.

Despite this official reprimand, suspicious activities by Iranian diplomatic personnel continued. “In May 2005, tips led the NYPD to six people on a sight-seeing cruise who were taking pictures and movies of city landmarks like the Brooklyn Bridge. In September 2008, police interviewed three people taking pictures of railroad tracks. And in September 2010, federal air marshals saw four people taking pictures and videos at a New York heliport.” During interviews by law enforcement, the four individuals disclosed that they were associated with the Iranian government. However, they were ultimately released and never charged.

Iranian intelligence gathering and surveillance activities have extended beyond New York City. In November 2019, two men—Ahmadreza Mohammadi-Doostdar, a dual U.S.-Iranian citizen and Majid Ghorbani, an Iranian citizen residing in California—pleaded guilty to acting as illegal agents of the government of Iran on charges stemming from monitoring two Jewish facilities in Chicago and as well as American members of an exiled Iranian opposition group, Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MeK), an Iranian dissident group that seeks regime change in Iran.

According to the criminal complaint, both men were accused of “acting on behalf of the Iranian government to gather information that could be used to identify and locate individuals and facilities.” Not only did they conduct physical surveillance on and collect information about Americans involved with MeK, but in July 2017, they also conducted hostile reconnaissance on the University of Chicago Hillel Center and a Rohr Chabad Center. “Doostdar was seen photographing the front and back of the Rohr Chabad Center, as well as the wrought iron fence surrounding the building. Doostdar also turned around to look at the building multiple times as he walked away.”

More recently, aggressive Iranian intelligence collection activities against Jewish targets have been detected in Europe. According to reporting from Israeli newspapers, German security forces raided various locations across Germany pursuing alleged members of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – Quds Force for spying on Jewish and Israeli locations. Raids were carried out in the German states of Baden-Württemberg, North Rhine-Westphalia, Bavaria and Berlin, but no arrests were made. Among the IRGC reconnaissance targets were Jewish kindergartens and the Israeli embassy in Berlin, Germany.

Some of these activities were discussed in greater detail by the intelligence agency of the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia. In a report issued during the summer of 2019, it found that “a main focus [of Iran’s regime] is spying on Israeli and pro-Israeli institutions, as well as citizens of the State of Israel living here [Germany] and persons of the Jewish faith.”

While more than twenty investigations related to Iranian espionage in Germany have been conducted, the one arrest and conviction in Germany linked to Iran dates back to 2017, when a Berlin court convicted Pakistani citizen, Haidar Syed-Naqfi, for being paid by the Qods Force to target Jewish and Israeli individuals and institutions. German prosecutors argued that Naqfi was told to identify, surveil and conduct reconnaissance on “Israeli and Jewish institutions and Israel advocates in Germany, France and other unnamed Western European countries for possible attacks.”

In recent years, more incidents of preoperational intelligence gathering, and surveillance activities have been detected, conducted by members of Hezbollah’s Islamic Jihad Organization (IJO) also known as Unit 910 than by Iranians. While New York City has figured prominently in these intelligence gathering efforts, Chicago, Washington DC and Boston have also registered as potential targets.

Exhibit a for this concern was an Investigation by the NYPD and the FBI that led to the May 31, 2017 arrests of two naturalized Americans from Lebanon who were recruited and trained by Hezbollah’s unit 910 to conduct intelligence collection missions in the United States. While these two lebanese expatriates, Ali Mohammed Kourani 32, and Samer El Debek, 37, at the time of their arrest, gave the outward appearance of leading ordinary lives in the U.S., in reality, they were conducting intelligence gathering missions for their beirut based handlers. In fact, Kourani went as far to describe himself to the FBI as “an IJO ‘sleeper’ operative working undercover in the United States.” On December 3, 2019, Ali Kourani was sentenced to 40 years in prison for “covert terrorist activities on behalf of Hezbollah’s Islamic Jihad Organization.” Samer El Debek’s case is still pending in courts.

In the wake of the arrest of these two IJO operatives, former New York City Police Department Commissioner James P. O’Neill noted, “preoperational surveillance is one of the hallmarks of [Hezbollah] in planning for future attacks.” The surveillance performed in New York City was done “in support of anticipated IJO terrorist attacks.”

The facts of the case, as laid out by the U.S. government, are worth recounting in detail. According to the Department of Justice “[f]rom at least in or about 2009, up to and including in or about September 2015, Kourani conducted surveillance of U.S. military and intelligence outposts in New York City, as well as airports in New York City and another country, in support of anticipated terrorist attacks by Hizballah’s Islamic Jihad Organization.” “Principally responsible for conducting IJO intelligence-gathering and surveillance activities, Kourani received taskings in Lebanon and executed his missions covertly.”

According to the Department of Justice, from Lebanon, Kourani was directed and “conducted physical surveillance of the following targets: FBI offices in Manhattan, New York; a U.S. Army National Guard facility in Manhattan, a U.S. Secret Service facility in Brooklyn, and a U.S. Army armory facility in Manhattan. Kourani used his phone to videotape activity around at least one of these surveillance targets, transferred the video footage to a memory card, and brought the memory card to his Lebanese-based handler and other IJO personnel in Lebanon.

When it came to airports, Kourani’s intelligence collection, surveillance and reconnaissance were not limited to the United States and John F. Kennedy Airport in New York. The scholar Matthew Levitt, whose research has focused on Hezbollah, has written that Kourani was tasked to also focus on Toronto’s Pearson International Airport, visiting Pearson seven times.

According to Levitt, during his debriefings with the FBI, Kourani explained that “he provided Hezbollah with details about security procedures, the uniforms worn by security officers, and whether the officers were armed.” Kourani’s surveillance “focused on exit points, security checkpoints, camera locations, baggage claim procedures, and what questions airport screeners asked passengers.”

Moreover, as Levitt notes, “aside from carrying out surveillance himself, Kourani also plied [Pearson] airport employees for information, some of whom understood they were providing information for Hezbollah while others were unwitting, in one case even smoking a hookah together with an airport employee who would “casually answer Kourani’s questions about the locations of cameras and magnetometers. Kourani said he could ask the man to carry a bag onto an airplane for him, and he would do it. “According to a U.S. Prosecutor’s statement during the trial, Hezbollah was ‘thinking about how to get terrorists, and weapons, and contraband through airports, from Lebanon into Canada, from Lebanon into the United States.’”

Similarly, while prosecutors accused Samer El Debek of surveilling “potential targets in America, including military and law enforcement facilities in New York”, much of his intelligence collection activity occurred in Latin America. In Panama, he allegedly was tasked to locate the U.S. and Israeli embassies, “case and identify security procedures at the Canal and Israeli Embassy” and “to locate places where items such as acetone and battery acid, which are explosive precursors, could be purchased.”

Kourani and El Debek were not the only IJO/Unit 910 members conducting intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance actives in the Americas. More recently, another Lebanese-born, Hezbollah trained IJO/Unit 910 member, Alexei Saab (AKA: “Ali Hassan Saab”) 42, was arrested in September 2019, accused of providing Hezbollah with “intelligence and photographs concerning several locations Saab had surveilled in the New York City area, including the Port Authority Bus Terminal, Grand Central Terminal, the New York Stock Exchange, [NYC FBI Headquarters at] 26 Federal Plaza, and local airports.” Saab had been recruited into Hezbollah as a student in Beirut in 1996, according to the Department of Justice, which is also the source of the allegations against Saab outlined in the paragraphs below.

For his surveillance training, besides classroom and field work in Beirut, Saab was allegedly taught sophisticated tradecraft to “start by recording an unrelated subject before panning the camera to the object of his surveillance” and “took videos from a high altitude and different zoom ranges to show perspective relevant to Hezbollah”. For still photography, “Saab would also often pose people in front of the intended objects of his surveillance, to provide perspective and shield his true purpose from law enforcement.”

As part of his “intelligence collection” efforts, “Saab explained that IJO had trained Saab so that his mindset was that he should always be gathering intelligence and he was on ‘autopilot’ to collect intelligence at any opportunity, including while he was in New York City.” Admitting the purpose of his intelligence collection activities, “Saab understood that the information he provided to the IJO would be used to calculate the size of a bomb needed to target a particular structure and the ideal location in which to place explosive devices to maximize damage,” so “Saab focused on structural weaknesses of the location he surveilled to determine how a future attack could cause the most destruction.” Saab’s information was allegedly prepared for the IJO in a seven-to-ten-page report on New York City.

New York City was allegedly not Saab’s only target. According to court documents, he also admitted that as part of his reconnaissance and intelligence collection, he took photographs in Boston including Quincy Market, Fenway Park and the Prudential Center and in Washington DC including the Capitol Building and the White House. His case is still pending in the courts.

In part two of Iran and Hezbollah’s Pre-Operational Modus Operandi in the West, authors Mitch Silber and Ioan Pop lay out the plausible diplomatic, business, cultural and other covers to conceal operational activity, the infiltration of Iranian dissident groups, logistical planning for potential future attacks, preparing ‘human target packages’, counterintelligence tradecraft, recruitment, and the ongoing threat in the United States.

A fully foot-noted version of this article is available at Taylor & Francis Online.

Read more expert-driven national security insights, analysis and opinion in The Cipher Brief

Source link

قالب وردپرس

from World Wide News https://ift.tt/2ZENgFB

#World Wide News

0 notes

longwindedbore · 6 years ago

Photo

“..,based on 2017 data, not 2018, and refers to stops made by Department of Homeland Security across the globe, mainly at airports... Ned Price, who served on President Barack Obama's National Security Council, said many of those 3,775 were stopped simply because their name matches that of someone on a terrorist watch list, which have grown in recent years, and not because they pose a threat... Nick Rasmussen, the former director of the National Counterterrorism Center from December 2014 through December 2017 said, "During my tenure, the threat of terrorists trying to infiltrate the United States across our southern border was much more of a theoretical vulnerability than an actual one. It simply isn’t the case that terrorist groups like ISIS and al Qaeda see the southern border as the optimal the way to get would-be terrorists into the country”. —— https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna954796

Mr. Hoult is a DHS Press Officer. He has previously tweeted that there were known criminals in the caravans - though he named none of them. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.dailydot.com/layer8/dhs-taylor-houlton-migrant-caravan/

3K notes · View notes

olivierknox · 8 years ago

Text

Trump retains 50 key Obama aides (for now)

yahoo

President-elect Donald Trump will keep 50 top aides to President Barack Obama on critical issues like the war on the so-called Islamic State, international sanctions and global counter-terrorism efforts, his spokesman announced Thursday.

“What we’ve ensured is that, for the time being, we’ve got a team in place that will continue to advise him and make sure that the country remains safe and that our priorities will be carried out,” incoming White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters.

The group includes Deputy Secretary of Defense Bob Work, the Pentagon’s number two; Undersecretary of Political Affairs Tom Shannon, the State Department’s number four; and the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Nick Rasmussen.

It also includes Obama’s lead aide in the war on ISIS, Brett McGurk, who managed Iraq and Afghanistan under former President George W. Bush. And it comprises Adam Szubin, whom Senate Republicans have refused to confirm as Director of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control.

Also staying on are Assistant Treasury Secretary for Management Kody Kinsley; Susan Coppedge, the top State Department official on combatting human trafficking; and the acting head of the Drug Enforcement Administration Chuck Rosenberg. Rosenberg served in several senior roles in Bush’s Justice Department, including as chief of staff to then-Deputy Attorney General Jim Comey, the future FBI director, and adviser to Attorney General John Ashcroft.

It’s not uncommon for incoming presidents to temporarily retain officials who served their predecessors in sensitive roles until their successors can be vetted and, if necessary, confirmed by the Senate. Bush retained one of Bill Clinton’s National Security Council press aides and some senior NSC directors who manage key issues. At least one Clinton NSC official, a career State Department person, served Clinton, then Bush, then Obama.

But the news comes amid reports that Trump is off to a slow start when it comes to enlisting people for key national security posts.

#_author:Olivier Knox #_revsp:Yahoo! News #_lmsid:a077000000CFoGyAAL #_uuid:3b41c3db-124e-3ac8-9e20-5b9723510974

2 notes · View notes

todaynewsstories · 6 years ago

Text

New outcry over Trump’s revocation of Brennan security clearance

(Reuters) – More than 175 former State Department and Pentagon officials added their names to a statement signed by national security officials criticizing President Donald Trump’s decision to cancel the security clearance of former Central Intelligence Agency director John Brennan.

FILE PHOTO: Former CIA director John Brennan is sworn in to testify before the House Intelligence Committee to take questions on “Russian active measures during the 2016 election campaign” on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., May 23, 2017. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo

New signatories to the statement, which was initially issued last week by 15 former directors and deputy chiefs of the CIA and Office of Director of National Intelligence, include former political appointees and career civil servants. They worked under both Democratic and Republican presidents.

Among the most prominent individuals to sign a new version of the statement released on Monday by senior officials from the George W. Bush and Obama administrations are former State Department and National Security Counsel lawyer John Bellinger, former Deputy Secretaries of State Anthony Blinken and William Burns, former Undersecretaries of State Nicholas Burns, Wendy Sherman and Thomas Pickering.

Also, former National Security Agency general counsel Robert Deitz, former National Counterterrorism Center directors Michael Leiter and Nick Rasmussen, former National Security Advisor Anthony Lake and former NATO commander Admiral James Stavridis.

While those signing may not agree with all of Brennan’s public attacks on Trump, the statement reads, they believe that “the country will be weakened if there is a political litmus test applied” before expert former officials are allowed to voice their views.

Trump said last week he was considering withdrawing clearances for other former high-ranking officials as well as Bruce Ohr, a current Justice Department official in the criminal division.

Brennan, who has publicly characterized Trump’s comments at a recent summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin as “treasonous,” has said he might sue the Trump administration over the revocation of his clearance.

“I am going to do whatever I can to try to prevent these abuses in the future, and if it means going to court, I will do that,” he said on Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” television program.

On Monday Trump blasted the new individuals who signed and said that while he hopes Brennan files a lawsuit, he doubted that would happen. He also questioned whether U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who has recused himself from his department’s probe into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election, would fire Ohr.

Russia has denied any election interference, and Trump has said there was no collusion with his campaign team.

“Everybody wants to keep their Security Clearance, it’s worth great prestige and big dollars, even board seats, and that is why certain people are coming forward to protect Brennan,” Trump said in a series of posts on Twitter.

Retired Navy Admiral William McRaven, who oversaw the 2011 Navy SEALs operation that killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, last week responded to Trump’s move by praising Brennan and asking the president to revoke his security clearance as well.

Reporting by Mark Hosenball; Editing by Jeffrey Benkoe

Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Source link

The post New outcry over Trump’s revocation of Brennan security clearance appeared first on Today News Stories.

from WordPress https://ift.tt/2w1urfY via IFTTT

#IFTTT #WordPress

0 notes

porchenclose10019 · 8 years ago

Text

All The President’s Witnesses For The Prosecution

As special counsel Robert Mueller reportedly works to determine whether the President attempted to obstruct justice with regard to the sprawling federal probe into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, he need look no further than the words of Donald Trump himself.

Trump’s tweets (“Phony collusion with the Russians story”) and public comments (firing his FBI director because of “the Russia thing”) provide a wealth of evidence for the special counsel as he probes why and how the President may have tried to make the Russia investigation disappear.

Mueller “already has the proof that Trump fired Comey because of the Russia investigation,” according to Cornell Law School professor Jens Ohlin.

“Trump just flat-out said it on national television,” he said. “So what would normally be the most difficult part of the investigation is not difficult at all. The whole world has the evidence.”

It’s rare for the reported target of an obstruction of justice investigation to freely provide so much insight into his motives. But even setting aside Trump’s public statements, Mueller would have a staggeringly long list of known fact witnesses and potential fact witnesses to question.

As the Washington Post revealed this week, the obstruction-of-justice inquiry began just days after James Comey was fired as head of the FBI in early May. Mueller took control of that probe after he was named special counsel, according to the Post.

Based on various officials’ sworn testimony before Congress and what’s been reported about Trump’s deliberations around firing Comey, the list of potential witnesses Mueller could speak with run the gamut from top Justice Department and intelligence officials to White House advisers—even Trump’s golf buddies. Here’s who could have valuable information to offer Mueller.

Star witness James Comey

Two private conversations that Trump had with Comey would be central to Mueller’s investigation. As Comey testified in vivid detail last week, the day after national security adviser Michael Flynn was forced out, Trump asked him to linger behind after an intelligence briefing in the Oval Office and told him he hoped the then-FBI director could let the Flynn probe “go.” In a subsequent phone conversation on March 30, Comey says Trump asked what he could do to “lift the cloud” the ongoing Russia investigation created over his administration.

These requests, combined with Trump’s previous appeal for his “loyalty,” did not feel casual, Comey said.

“I took it as a direction,” he testified. “It is the President of the United States, with me alone, saying ‘I hope this.’ I took it as, this is what he wants me to do.”]

Comey kept detailed contemporaneous memos of the one-on-one conversations he had with Trump, which a friend, Columbia Law School professor Daniel Richman, reportedly has turned over to Mueller’s office already. The former FBI director testified last week that he documented those conversations out of concern that the President would “lie” about their interactions.

He also testified that he briefed a number of high-level FBI staff about the contents of the memos so that they could corroborate his accounts. Those individuals, who could serve as fact witnesses for Mueller, include Comey’s chief of staff, Jim Rybecki; then-FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe; general counsel James A. Baker’ and McCabe’s chief counsel. According to Comey, some of those debriefing conversations also included David Bowdich, the FBI’s associate deputy director, and Carl Ghattas, the executive assistant director for the national security branch.

Top intelligence officials

Mueller plans to interview a number of senior intelligence officials, including Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, National Security Agency head Adm. Mike Rogers, and Rogers’ former deputy, Richard Ledgett, as part of the obstruction investigation, according to the Washington Post.

Shortly after Comey first confirmed that the FBI was investigating possible collusion between Trump campaign staffers and Russian operatives, Trump asked Coats and CIA Director Mike Pompeo to stay behind following a March 22 briefing at the White House, according to the Post. Though Coats later testified he never felt pressured to intervene in the Russia investigation, he reportedly told associates at the time that the President had asked if he could convince Comey to lay off an investigation into Flynn.

Days afterward, Trump reportedly called each Coats and Rogers individually to ask that they publicly deny any evidence of collusion—a request they denied. Ledgett wrote an internal memo documenting Trump’s call with Rogers, according to the Post and the Wall Street Journal. The Journal noted that during that phone conversation, the President cast doubt on the U.S. intelligence community’s assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election.

Attendees at Valentine’s Day briefing

While Trump cornered Comey alone on Feb. 14 to discuss the investigation into Flynn, a number of other senior White House officials can speak to the circumstances surrounding that one-on-one conversation. As Comey testified, he, Vice President Mike Pence, CIA Deputy Director Gina Haspel, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, National Counterterrorism Center Director Nick Rasmussen, Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, and Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, were all present for a counterterrorism briefing.

Comey testified that when Trump asked him to stay behind afterwards, Sessions and Kushner dawdled.

“My sense was the attorney general knew he shouldn’t be leaving which is why he was lingering,” he said. “I don’t know Mr. Kushner well but I think he picked up on the same thing.”

Trump’s chief of staff, Reince Priebus, also poked his head into the room at one point, according to Comey, before the President waved him away.

Mueller will likely be interested in asking these individuals whether Trump mentioned the Flynn investigation before, during or after that meeting, as well as asking them if they had any insight into why he asked Comey to speak with him alone, legal experts said.

“The particular story with Sessions and Kushner being sent out has to be confirmed by them,” David Golove, a constitutional law expert at New York University, told TPM.

“He might even want to speak to people who were in physical proximity to those rooms who could testify about what people’s reactions were as they were leaving the room, did anyone say anything when they left the room,” Ohlin said, noting administrative staffers like secretaries or schedulers could provide useful insight.

Anyone involved in deliberations over Comey’s firing

Although White House officials have put forth conflicting explanations for Trump’s abrupt dismissal of Comey, Trump told NBC News’ Lester Holt that he would have ousted Comey no matter what advice he received and that the “Russia thing” was on his mind when he decided to go through with it. Comey testified that he believed the President’s account: that he was fired to “change the way the Russia investigation was being conducted.”

Legal experts said Mueller will likely want to speak with the White House officials who reportedly deliberated with Trump and offered support for Comey’s ouster, particularly Kushner and Pence. Priebus, Trump’s daughter and adviser, Ivanka Trump, White House Counsel Don McGahn, and Trump’s longtime bodyguard-turned-director of Oval Office operations Keith Schiller, who delivered Comey’s termination letter to FBI headquarters, also were among those involved, according to the Post.

Both Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who Trump tasked with writing memos to lay out the case for firing Comey, could also serve as fact witnesses for Mueller. The administration initially used those memos to justify the President’s move before Trump himself publicly blew up that narrative in the interview with Holt.

NatSec officials who heard Trump call Comey a “nut job”

Trump bragged about firing Comey, who he referred to as a “nut job,” to Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov and Russia’s ambassador to the U.S., Sergei Kislyak, in an Oval Office meeting the day after he made the bold move. Comey’s removal, Trump told the top diplomats, lifted “great pressure” on him created by the federal Russia investigation, according to a New York Times report.

The Times’ story was based on a document summarizing the gathering and the White House did not dispute it. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, and his deputy, Dina Powell, were all present for the meeting, making them potential fact witnesses.

Other unknown administration officials

The President’s loose lips and the unprecedented leakiness of his administration present another potential problem for Trump, as there is a vast network of White House and administration officials who may be privy to information valuable to Mueller.

These include members of the White House communications team and officials at the DOJ and FBI. The Post spoke to some 30 people for its story on the background of Comey’s firing, indicating just how wide a net could be cast.

A wide network of friends and hangers-on

The final group of potential witnesses includes Trump’s close confidantes from New York City and his various private clubs, who he is known to call up to grouse about his administration’s crisis du jour.

“He frequently calls people who work in the media or friends or former partners of his that he’s relied on for counsel—a kind of eclectic collection of people he considers to be loyal and have good advice,” Ohlin said. “So I’d imagine Mueller would want to speak to them all as well.”

Just this week, Trump ally and Newsmax CEO Chris Ruddy kicked off a firestorm by suggesting that the President was considering firing the man now reported to be overseeing the obstruction of justice investigation: Mueller himself.

from DIYS http://ift.tt/2tui0FL

#DIYS

0 notes